Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

SternisheFan writes with news that Google has updated is Transparency Report for the sixth time, and the big takeaway this time around is a significant increase in government surveillance. From the article:
"In a blog post, Google senior policy analyst Dorothy Chou says, ' [G]overnment demands for user data have increased steadily since we first launched the Transparency Report.' In the first half of 2012, the period covered in the report, Chou says there were 20,938 inquiries from government organizations for information about 34,614 Google-related accounts. Google has a long history of pushing back against governmental demands for data, going back at least to its refusal to turn over search data to the Department of Justice in 2005. Many other companies have chosen to cooperate with government requests rather than question or oppose them, but Chou notes that in the past year, companies like Dropbox, LinkedIn, Sonic.net and Twitter have begun making government information requests public, to inform the discussion about Internet freedom and its limits. According to the report, the U.S. continues to make the most requests for user data, 7,969 in the first six months of the year. Google complied with 90% of these requests. Google's average compliance rate for the 31 countries listed in the report is about 47%."

Road Building, Defense, Fire Departments, and health care usually get tonnes of money thrown at them. For the price paid, Government generally does a terrible job on those as well. But because we overspend, it's arguable they do a good job of it. If you want to see government employees disappointing you, go find some area where they're paid badly, or have budgets that are being scaled back regularly.

Amazing. So people who are underpaid on missions that are underfunded don't perform as well as YOU would like them to? I'll alert the media.

You complain government does things badly, cite some good examples mixed in with some pretty questionable ones, and just know you're right, huh?

You know that outside the "all government is always bad" bubble that there are people in this country who, to this day, would not have electricity or phones were it not for government action. You cite two disasters and throw

the following things being quite bad when the US government does them:

FTFY

Many other governments around the world manage these things reasonably effectively. Your government seems more ideological/theological/tribally driven than most, which makes practical approaches to service provision less likely.

No, you're actually entirely incorrect. It has nothing to do with the ideological stance of the government, it has everything to do with the size of the government. The U.S. Government is quite probably the largest single employer in the world. If not it's definitely in the top 5. When you have a massive system of shitty employees who cannot be fired trying to meet the needs of hundreds of millions of people, you are bound to get absolute sh*t everywhere.

I can see it now. The Microsoft police only answer calls from Windows phones and the officers always have the flu. Then there's the self-driving Google ambulance that requires a DNA sample as it shows you ads relevant to your current medical condition. Don't even get me started on the Apple hospital, it's literally a walled garden and the jello costs $20.

You're ignorant. My power company, CWLP, is run by the city. We have the lowest rates, the best uptime, and the best customer service in the state. Why? Because if the poor suckers a town away get shitty customer service or a lot of outages or high rates, there's not a god damned thing they can do about it. On the other hand, if our service suffers, we get a new Mayor next election.

Fire departments are run locally, and the only thing on this list which is run reasonably well.

They run even better with less government involvement. Several years ago I was a member of a volunteer fire department. Only the chief was a government employee. Everyone else was an unpaid volunteer. We had one pumper truck, and rest of our vehicles were pickup trucks, parked at the home of a volunteer in each neighborhood. What we lacked in professional training and equipment, we made up with really fast response times, which is the single most important factor in fighting fires. I don't understan

They run even better with less government involvement. Several years ago I was a member of a volunteer fire department. Only the chief was a government employee. Everyone else was an unpaid volunteer. We had one pumper truck, and rest of our vehicles were pickup trucks, parked at the home of a volunteer in each neighborhood. What we lacked in professional training and equipment, we made up with really fast response times

Several years ago my car caught fire [kuro5hin.org]. I was on my way down to the St Louis area to see s

Yeah, it used to be correctly named the Department of War, or as seen in the movies "The War Department". But I believe after WWII, they changed it to "Department of Defense" since there was no longer a current war; now considering the large number of never-ending not-declared-by-congress Wars that we are fighting on multiple fronts, the Department of War would again be the apropos moniker. It's just that it doesn't have the right political flavor f

"Medicare accounts for half of all healthcare spending in this country, and only covers a small portion of us"Soooo, obamacare will fix this?-----------------All you pouty boys shut up, let someone with some sense explain this.It really is (past) time for an explanation of how this is going to work.

"....compared to the mainly private healthcare system used in the USA."

How is the USA healthcare system "mainly private"? Two government programs Medicare & Medicaid account for the bulk of healthcare expenditures in the USA. Government mandates such as EMTALA are pervasive. Government places artificial barriers to competition in healthcare services, insurance and prescription drugs. Insurance policies face further mandates about what they absolutely must cover.

I think it's safe to say that the federal government does things pretty poorly.

I disagree. I think it is safe to say that some people have figured out how to insert themselves in between the government programs and the people. They are like leeches or ticks that have become swollen and bloated, not realizing that they are literally (yes, literally) killing the host with their excesses.

Which do you mean? That Google is much more efficient at surveilling us than any government could hope to be? Or that it was unfortunate that Google's DB fell into the hands of the Chinese government and may in the future fall into the hands of a government which governs you?

Thinking of changing my sig to:If Chrome were the last browser on earth... I would browse with wget.

Regarding Google and Chrome: I have started using an Andriod tablet. At first it made me nervous, because you are very "checked in" to the googleplex when using Chrome on an Android tablet. Everything is keyed to your Google Play account, and you're generaly logged in on your account when using the browser. Then I discovered Firefox for Android. Now it's almost the only browser I use on my Galaxy Tab.

I have to say that I'm not completely sure about that. When the government obtains tons of personal information about you, they can use it against you. When a corporation in the US obtains tons of personal information about you, they'll probably use it to make more money... but the government will also try to get access to that information, and if they do get it (which they probably will), they'll use it against you. In that scenario, it's possible that numerous entities get your information. As long as the

Right, but my entire point was that the government can get this data from the companies, and then multiple entities have the it; one of them (the government) can ruin your life. Because corporations so freely hand over the data to the government, it can sometimes be worse if a corporation is the one who gets the data, in my opinion.

That's rather naive, I think. Google is a corporation, one which people agree to certain conditions in order to use the corporation's services.

On the other hand, the government is supposed to work for the people. In fact, we have a constitution that was meant to limit government's powers and authority. That constitution granted us rights, and limited government's rights.

You can fight against Google's snooping without worrying about prison time. Fighting government snooping may very well land you in pris

Wrong. It enumerates government powers and says that anything not granted to the feds is your right or your state's right. It does NOT gurantee rights, although the first ten amendments do quantify certain rights. But see the tenth amendment, which says that your rights are not limited by the Bill of Rights.

Things that used to be ephemeral (telephone calls, letters, etc.) are becoming long-lived (emails, social networking posts, instant messages, etc.) and are useful investigative toosl.

Previously the police needed to get telephone records and then analyze the calling records to form connections. With social networks like Facebook, people do it for them.

Can the authorities abuse their position of power for various nefarious deeds? Absolutely. Are some of their requests legally or ethically dubious? No doubt. Nevertheless, there's plenty of legitimate reasons for governments to request user information and it should come as no surprise that the number of such requests is increasing.

That said, it's nice to see that major players like Google are quantifying the requests and the reasons behind them, as well as pushing back against such demands.

I'd like to see more of the other big information collectors volunteer this same information, and even better, push back against them and demand a warrant, as they should. You see most people here slinging anti-Google FUD, and they're the *best* of the bunch (although still demanding warrants as they should).

Can the authorities abuse their position of power for various nefarious deeds? Absolutely. Are some of their requests legally or ethically dubious? No doubt. Nevertheless, there's plenty of legitimate reasons for governments to request user information and it should come as no surprise that the number of such requests is increasing.

The problem with "legitimate" requests begins when they become so routine that they end up as fishing expeditions rather than legitimate criminal investigations.

What did Google expect? That government wouldn't see that social networking sites and Google's press for personal information would be an attractive target?

After all, what once required actually boots hitting the ground, gathering of data, and correllating it together can be fulfilled with a simple, easy and no-fuss request to Google and the like, why wouldn't the government do that? It's cheaper, easier, and faster. And Google keeps demanding more information from you, making it even MORE tempting for government.

Of course, it's not like Google can do anything about it - they depend on knowing lots about you to begin with in order to pay the bills.

I remember the days when my friends laughed at me for never starting a facebook page. I kept telling them that what they were doing by putting their entire lives on a single company's database was no different than handing it to any 3-letter agency. They thought I was crazy/paranoid/backwards. Of course they usually thought this as I was fixing their computer for them.

Now the damage is done. It's highly likely that elections are being won with the volunteered information and raw database-crunching power a

Google has done more to damage online anonymity than any other entity, commercial or otherwise. They force you to create real name accounts whenever they can get away with doing so and call it an 'identity service'. They want your real world contact info to create any account with them, then consolidate all those accounts and then they drive the other services (who don't yet do it) out of business. When the government comes with a warrant, they just hand the data over. Anonymity is the last line of defense

Whatever happened to "Don't be evil"? And how many tens of thousands of enquiries from "government
agencies" does one have to receive before one is not acting as a subject but rather as an arm of that
same government. And, at what point do people have to say "enough"?

Yes and no. The government wouldn't be so interested in google if their surveilance model weren't so similar to google's business model - centralized collection of as much data as possible for data mining purposes.

In google's defense, their publication of this information is about the best we can hope for from them to counter what are practically secret fishing expeditions, short of them using their lobbyists to convince congress to reign in the DOJ/DHS.

How exactly would per-user encryption help? You can encrypt your emails if you want, but if Google does it per user, they still have the key. This is very much a government problem. If Google doesn't have to hand to hand over the data but does anyway, it's a Google problem as well. As I've said above though, Google's probably the *least* evil of the big data corps.

How exactly would per-user encryption help? You can encrypt your emails if you want, but if Google does it per user, they still have the key.

The fact that currently, encryption would have to happen at Google smells to me like a gigantic flaw in the whole "web apps for everything" mantra. I can not only encrypt when I run my own mail client with standard protocols, but I even get to choose whether I want to go S/MIME or PGP. Neither is an option in the webmail space unless I want to delegate crypto to the service provider.

(Depending on your conspiracy bent, you could also say this constitutes a non-flaw from Google's perspective.)

Google supports IMAP which you can use to encrypt of course, but I think there are a few webmail clients that will do it for you as well. And yes, I would think that most people being too lazy (or just plain not technically competent) is a plus from Google's perspective. Then again, you're trading your personal information for their services, and they're not being particularly backhanded about it. Many people consider it an acceptable trade. Personally I'd like to see the laws changed so that a warrant is r

Fine. Replace the word Google with any company that you would like that collects user data. The fact of the matter is that if company X wants to remain licensed as a business, they have to comply with legal government orders. Yes, company X is collecting the data but the users know the data is being collected. Most likely, company X has a publicly accessible privacy policy. No user is being forced to use the services of company X. Now if company X, starts giving the government access to restricted user data

Considering the number of laws these days that specifically avoid warrants, I doubt they even have much choice anymore. The best thing they can do really is what you see here, making sure as many people as possible know about it. On a side note, i love how they handle DMCA takedown requests on their search results, you click on the link at the bottom of the page, and it gives you a list of links that someone wanted removed. It's brilliant!

They may be posting embarassing or scandalous items at the top of their search results, but I have
noticed in the past that certain individuals have almost nothing about them. In particular, one former
Canadian politician who was in the news every day for a couple years regarding a sex scandal. When
I google his name almost nothing shows up, perhaps 2 or 3 general articles. What's the deal with that?
I've read that there are persons who claim to get things "removed" from Google . The other day I
googled "Bo

Google represents a small chunk of data collection though. Facebook, ISP's, cell and landline companies, EZ pass tolls, credit agencies, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo...it's a long list. At least Google is transparent about what information is being collected, what it's used for, and how it's accessed. That's kind of unique in this post-9/11 age, and I think that supports their "Don't be evil" mantra.

Bullshit. Besides, no one is innocent. With as many laws as we have, do you really think there is any individual haven't broken at least one of them? If you are "innocent", it simply means you haven't pissed off anyone in power yet.

You won't know until you get a call or worse a visit from the Feds. Ask a certain ex-CIA director. I know it's evil to be spied on by somebody else but your neighbor, but just imagine the civil rights uproar that would arise should the list be made public.

I'm certain that the old saying, they attack because they envy our freedoms still apply. I'm certain the middle eastern people's wouldn't feel at home in the "freedom loving" country USA.

I'm only pissed off because these stupid ideas and police state tactics, laws and such are being exported from USA to Europe so that they can comply with USG requests and of course to fill their envy quota of power grabbing from the people. USA is today, is a black hole, sucking away the light.

Wow, that's quite a spike in user content take down requests in the six months leading up to a major election! I wonder if this will repeat in 2016?
My bet is that they will start auto-generating background noise requests in order to render Google's reports useless to the public. Some of those randomly selected users are going to be seriously baffled!